Historically, it was thought that shoulder straps were the key to lifting and supporting breasts. Then European bra makers carried the underwire to another level—designing a much more substantial back strap that more efficiently transmitted pressure to better a designed underwire. By tightening the back strap, the back strap provided greater support without the discomfort of tight shoulder straps. Bra makers also realized that it was more efficient to support breasts from below rather than pulling them up with shoulder straps (this same advancement occurred in backcountry backpacks, which are now supported mostly by a waist strap rather than uncomfortable shoulder straps).
More recently, advances in bra technology have plateaued because of the anatomic variations between the chest walls of different users. Mass-produced underwires cannot hug many irregular ribs and breast bones, which results in loss or lack of support and/or discomfort for many users. This is one reason why a number of users simply cannot find a properly fitting bra.
Breast implants are not the same as the breast. Breast implants are not in the breast but behind it. But it turns out both breasts and breast implants are most powerfully manipulated in position by firmly opposed to the skin well-fitting underwires. The analogy stops there though because implant manipulation does not need the cup of the bra, and consequences to implant position can be long term even after stopping the underwire use. This is especially true in the seven or so months following breast implant surgery. Existing post-operative breast implant position manipulation solutions suffer from many of the same deficiencies as existing bra technology. Primary among them are infinite chest wall shapes that must be hugged/opposed by mass-produced underwires.
Examples of common body shapes that are not supported by existing bra designs and post-operative implant manipulation solutions include: (1) a caved in central chest (pectus excavatum); (2) an overly prominent central chest (pectus carinatum); (3) an entire chest that slopes inward toward the abdomen without a level plane; (4) asymmetry; and (5) other chest irregularities that interfere with the position of an underwire. In all these cases, firmly and evenly opposing a bra underwire on the chest wall is difficult or impossible no matter how tight the back strap of the bra is fastened. Infinite variabilities of chest wall shape leave many users without a viable solution, both women desiring breast support and surgeons wanting to influence post-operative implant position.
Another challenge for mass-produced bras for the breast implant patient is that such bras are designed for natural breasts. Implanted breasts are different in that they do not add much volume in the sternum area but add it more in the breast meridian or in the central breast area. Therefore, the connection between the underwire and cups of a mass-produced bra is often not long enough, with the result being that the area of the underwire does not fit correctly to the chest.
The headings provided herein are for convenience only and do not necessarily affect the scope or meaning of what is claimed in the present disclosure.
Embodiments of the present disclosure and their advantages are best understood by referring to the detailed description that follows. It should be appreciated that like reference numbers are used to identify like elements illustrated in one or more of the figures, wherein showings therein are for purposes of illustrating embodiments of the present disclosure and not for purposes of limiting the same.